19 comments Add a comment
Our house and neighbours have enjoyed great views over the golf course and countryside. A recent development by Taylor Wimpey will obliterate our views. The buildings are so close to us, like 2 metres from our back fence! According to the planning department views do not count and this is true in planning. However as we ALL know views are important in selling a house and do add value to a house. This is borne out by those who levy council tax.
If you have amenities such as golf course views you are taxed for this amenity. I have applied for a reduction in council tax due to loss of amenity. If successful surely this proves that a view is an asset and has a monetary value. Surely you cannot tax on one hand and not give compensation on the other if the amenity is lost?
Property developer should compensate those affected
It would also mean that new developments which ruin views contribute to a lowering of revenues collected by council tax. It is time for all bodies to coordinate. How can it be on one hand that a view is not to be considered and on the other that it is a consideration for tax! Thus if a building plan reduces the value of a property but must be built for extra housing and of course affordable housing (a joke and a con) then the property developer should compensate those affected by the approved plan and pay compensation accordingly. This would only be fair don't you think?
I am sure the Taylor Wimpey's of the world would back down on exploitative and speculative property developments if compensation had to be paid out. "Where can we build?" they would bleat! Well not in my back-yard for a start! There is plenty of land around and plenty of brown sites without ruining the fortunes and lives of those who happily pay council tax in the hope of having value for it.
Nice to see the value of Taylor Wimpey reduced by 84% over the past year. Nice! Well serves them right another example of unbridled greed such as Northern Rock and many more. Sadly those who they employ end up losing jobs as a result.
So views do count and it is time planning and the tax man sang from the same sheet. I urge for a change in law that values the amenity of view from one's home.
By: Jim Currie
Leave a comment
I cannot sell my bungalow people are horrified when they see how close they are to mine I have reduced the price by 50,000 and still I cannot sell it . Surely I must be able to claim compensation !
Why cant people have vital services because of protected tree roots
That is until Arncliffe Homes won the right to build houses immediately next door to me on Hazel Beck Bingley.
They leave mud on the road for says / weeks on end from vehicles leaving the site (concil does nothing).
The works generates excessive noise from mobile plant at all times of the day including very early in the morning (council does nothing).
Dust is everywhere contaminating washing out on the line, cars covered in dust from the site (council does nothing).
These people consenting planning permission should grant permission where they live and experience for themselves but that will bever happen.
YES WE SHOULD BE COMPENSATED FOR OUR LOSSES and loss of value REMEMBER owners of properties in lovely locations paid a premium in the 1st place to occupy such lovely homes.
Jim Currie, your argument is based on a false premise. When someone buys a house next to someone else's undeveloped or open land, they do not buy the amenities (the benefits of the surroundings, including the view, tranquility or privacy), nor do they have any legal entitlement to them. The amenities do not form an integral part of the property value, so if the amenities are lost because of the land being developed, none of the neighbours will suffer devaluation of their homes. Who ever heard of a new housing estate devaluing existing housing adjacent?
Every time somebody in this country objects to new housing being built close to their home, they are condemning millions of young adults to being locked out of the housing market, unable to purchase, trapped in private rented accommodation with high rents, or living longer with parents - and for what? To protect the free view with no legal right for some selfish person.
I am a retired Town Planner and fed up with selfish miserable NIMBYS.
Surely this cannot be legal. For a start its green belt, he’s a councillor and on the planning committee. Are there no checks and balances to stop these people getting into office and doing what they like?
And they call me a criminal for getting caught speeding.
I’m clearly in the wrong crime league.
50 years ago every department store had a hardware department, with buyers knowing their products. Alas no more. Today every department store is simply and only yet another shopping mall, internally filled with "fashion" boutiques, but largely staffed with people on minimum wage, the braindead.
Our local high street is "dead": 10 Italian "Barista" coffee-houses: I loathe the froth and grunge they serve. Ladies nail bars, hair dressers, and snobby up-market charity shops, not the thrift-shops of former times all these thrive. The Butchers, the Bakers, the Fruiterers, the street markets have all deserted us. All we have is a weekly "farmers' market", a completely artificial nonsense, like organic foodstuffs. Where are the promised GM foodstuffs I have been waiting for?
People with alot of money seem to be able to do whatever they want, even if it involves walking all over somebody else.
The people without money are the ones that get walked all over and simply have to put up with it.
Head of the planning dept
Chief executive
Chairman of the council
Leaders of the political groups
Head of audit
using non-controversial terminology. Be very careful not to libel an individual but be as critical of the council as you like
Ask for a full investigation including an independent review of the current planning decision as against all previous refusals and also voice your serious concerns over possible conflicts of interest. Give them a set time in which to respond to your concerns. Make it clear you will not leave the matter if no satisfactory explanantion is forthcoming. Do not agree to resolution in camera or via telephone.
If they do not respond or try to fob you off or attempt to bully you into withdrawing, contact the LG Ombudsman: www.lgo.org.uk and send a copy of all correspondence.
This can be extremely entertaining especially if the cluncil do not follow very precise guidelines. I have seen several cases of public bodies putting up stiff resistance only to trip themselves on their own bureacuracy.
Good luck.
Ringo